There are many potential aiki responses to a shot. Sprawling is not one of them. Some involve sutemi, some involve tenkan, and some are plain ol' fashioned atemi and drive their face into the ground.

But having said that, I reiterate my earlier statement. Aikido is NOT a groundfighting paradigm - in fact, it is not even a "fighting" paradigm. Therefore, an aikidoka worth their salt is NOT going to take the encounter to the ground and is going to prevent a groundfighter from doing so. The groundfighter has to cover the range, get inside the aikidoka's space and remove their base.

We're just debating in circles.... Aikido is NOT a groundfighting paradigm, so any argument involving "what if", "aikido", "wrestling" and "groundfighting" is moot.

There are many potential aiki responses to a shot. Sprawling is not one of them. Some involve sutemi, some involve tenkan, and some are plain ol' fashioned atemi and drive their face into the ground.

But having said that, I reiterate my earlier statement. Aikido is NOT a groundfighting paradigm - in fact, it is not even a "fighting" paradigm. Therefore, an aikidoka worth their salt is NOT going to take the encounter to the ground and is going to prevent a groundfighter from doing so. The groundfighter has to cover the range, get inside the aikidoka's space and remove their base.

We're just debating in circles.... Aikido is NOT a groundfighting paradigm, so any argument involving "what if", "aikido", "wrestling" and "groundfighting" is moot.

The groundfighter whose trying to steal your wallet so he can eat doesn't care about what "paradigms" you trained in while your cornered against that wall. Just a thought. In addition anyone who is serious about defense should know their enemy so why wouldn't a sensible self defense pracitioner especially in Aikido not expose himself to potential knowledge of someone who may attack them.

I think Aikido can be devestating if the assailant is in a position to have his joints or limbs broken. However, I know this is not the intention of the aikidoka per se. Aikido seeks to bring resolution to the conflict through redirection of force and control rather than brute engagement.

That is interesting because Mochizuki Sensei was an expert in strangulation holds, which he perfected. The Yoseikan Budo is rooted in the Judo and Aiki-jutsu PRE WW2. He retained Aikido's combative elements. So you will find in addition to many locks and circular movements, sacrifice-throws, and strikes from Karate, and i believe Boxing, and Savate. I still look at the more modern Aiki-Kai type Aikido, and think it's a little soft.

AIKI NEWS: When did Mochizuki Sensei actually perfect his Yosekian system and what were its main features?

AUGÉ: I don't know exactly when it happened, but he said that when he was in Europe, he was challenged several times and was exposed to different martial arts and sports. Then he found out that he could switch naturally from one martial art to the other. He also said that he felt that aikido as he had learned it was lacking in effectiveness, but the taisabaki were good for entering inside the opponents' guard so he could then apply variations and techniques from other martial arts. Mochizuki Sensei told us that when he went back to Japan, he talked to Ueshiba Sensei about the necessity of adapting the art to modern fighting systems that use punches and kicks, such as French savate and karate. However, Ueshiba Sensei did not show any concern for such things and Mochizuki Sensei decided to do it by himself.

This is part of an interview with the head of Yoseikan in North America, Pat Auge. You can see it in Aiki News.

hope this gives you some more reference to my posts about Yoseikan techniques.

It is the learned observations of my former Sensei, and his Sensei in turn, that some Aikido as it has become is lacking in martial effectiveness.

Sorry, but that is what they seem to say. Mochizuki himself was trained in the Kodokan under KANO in JUDO,and under Ueshiba,also under Funakoshi in KARATE. as well he is learned in other Japanese arts. He was a Master (10th Dan), so I think his judgment in the matter is credible.

It is not that Aikido PER SE is ineffective, but just the way it has come to be taught in some circles, with less emphasis on technical development, and more of an excersice, that it lacks sincerity in the dojo.

Remember that Ueshiba himself was dedicated to intense and hard training under his teachers in Judo and Kendo. The old days were no cake walk. His awareness or ki was so highly developed in his later life that he reached Mastery.

So please don't take my point as an attack on Aikido effectiveness. To be strong you need strong attacks and defense in the dojo. But not strength alone. You need timing, sensitivity, technique, and ki.

I'm not saying yoseikan is the only show in town that is good. There are others, but that was my experience. I had a superb teacher. I was LUCKY to have found Yoseikan under Patrick Auge. To this day I retain much of my Aikido. Not all the attributes i developed when I seriously trained, but I can still do the falls and rolls, I can get out of holds, it almost sticks with me like an invisible shield.

If you read carefully, you'll find that eyrie is not saying "don't train in groundfighting"...

Quote:

Groundfighting is a distinct and worthwhile skillset to add to one's repertoire.

...

I say this because the strategy of Aikido requires one to be (standing) in the right place at the right time, so that you are not taken to the ground.

Of course we can surmise all the "what ifs" ad nauseum, so if you happen to be taken to the ground, then you had better quickly get up on your feet!

Also, the second sentence does not say "aikidoka canb't be taken to the ground. What I take from it is that if you are true to the highest concepts of aikido, and practicing aikido(not fighting), then your focus is to be standing in the right place at the right time. This does not necessarily mean standing in front of your opponent, it could mean standing somewhere after having left the scene...

Keep in mind that most competitive arts, both participants are trying to effect the same thing against the other person. If we are in a BJJ class, we are both intending to grapple, gain position and submit the other. If we are both Thai boxers, we are both trying to hit (punch/kick/elbow/knee)the other person. If we are in an MMA tourney, we are both planning to fight inside the cage/ring. But in a self defence/street situation, my aikido mindset does not require that I strike, kick, submit, choke-out, or knock-out the other person. My aikido mindset is simply that I don't want any of the above happening to me.

Takedowns are very different against someone that does not want to engage versus someone that is intent to engage either in striking or grappling.

I'm not trying to put words in eyrie's mouth (or post) but simply offering my interpretation of his post. I'm also not in any way claiming that aikidoka can't be taken down cause I know better.